3 ms·

This is an argument to not have any of those benefits (nor the income tax as well). Then a stronger semblance of markets can take root, especially w.r.t pay. I

• runako 4y ago
  > This is an argument to not have any of those benefits (nor the income tax as well). Then a stronger semblance of markets can take root, especially w.r.t pay. This is an important argument! The counterargument is that we Americans tried it that way, and to summarize: it did not work out very well. By which I mean the outcome was broadly considered, across decades, not congruent with American values and preferences, which tilted toward electing representation to correct the situation. Which is not to say this wouldn't work elsewhere, just that America is not "elsewhere." > I'd be open to a UBI-type subsidy that is NOT means tested (everyone get it) to replace all the programs you've mentioned above, which are means tested. This would be an interesting experiment and IMHO is more intriguing that rehashing experiences that have already been repeatedly rebuffed by Americans.
  • strawhatguy 4y ago
    > The counterargument is that we Americans tried it that way, and to summarize: it did not work out very well Actually no, it did work really well. The first century in the US saw leaps and bounds of economic growth, and for the common person most of all. Of course, generally things are better off today, after having benefited from all that early growth. Still, the pace of advancement has slowed, and most of that slowdown has come from people thinking they can redesign society.